It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Asteroid 2007 TU24 has NASA concerned.

page: 8
130
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   



Originally posted by stikkinikki


I am familiar with energy from the sun causing auroras but I have never heard of anything else causing such affects. Can you provide an example
of a plasma discharge that is not a Earth-Sun one?


Originally posted by aaaauroraaaaa

When WD5 (or something like that) passes mars on January 30th, u will discharge between the two planets, as Mars is negative and WD5 is neutral positive. (which is why it did not effect earth went it passes earth, as earth is also positive)



How about an example of a non earth or sun body trigger of plasma that has happened?




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Asking questions is fine.

Saying the world will end every five bl**dy minutes - and expecting people to beleive you - is not. It seriously annoys - and upsets me - that charlatans start these stories which some people then go on to believe.

But some people derive a perverse pleasure form starting these scare stories. And, sadly, some also make considerable financial gain out of it (TU-24 will destroy the earth, but give me all your money and I will ensure the Annuaki will beam us up to Nibiru and save us)


Edit: and if TU24 hits the earth, or fires a plasma discharge at us, you have my permission to come round, punch me in the face and say "I told you so"


[edit on 20-1-2008 by Essan]


Very well said

This is just another planet x "type" thread. No real facts just supposition and pseudoscience.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Very well said

This is just another planet x "type" thread. No real facts just supposition and pseudoscience.


what is a real fact and what is a fake fact?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by aaaauroraaaaa
 



On March 23, 1989 the 300 meter (1,000-foot) diameter Apollo asteroid 4581 Asclepius (1989 FC) missed the Earth by 700,000 kilometers (400,000 miles) passing through the exact position where the Earth was only 6 hours before. (wikipedia)



March 18, 2004 saw a very close recorded approach of a near-Earth object (NEO). Asteroid 2004 FH, about 30 meters (100 feet) in diameter, passed approximately 43,000 kilometers (26,500 miles) above the Earth's surface (one-tenth of the distance to the Moon). Astronomers had detected it just three days before. While the time from detection to nearest approach may seem short, Asteroid 2004 FH is extremely small. A NEO with globally cataclysmic potential would have a better chance of being discovered earlier.

Only two weeks later on March 31, 2004, meteoroid 2004 FU162 set a new record for closest recorded approach, passing Earth only 6,500 km (4,000 miles) away (nearly one-sixtieth of the distance to the Moon). Because it was very small (6 meters/20 feet), FU162 was detected only hours before its closest approach. If it had collided with Earth, it probably would have harmlessly disintegrated in the atmosphere. (wikipedia)



So nothing happened. No discharge.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by looofo
 


Wikipedia didn't mention if they were negatively charged or not. They must have been positive or neutral passing Earth with no reaction.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Moegli
 


So every other NEO in history has been been neutral or positively charged so has had no effect, but TU24 if negatively charged so will be different ..... although, of course, there's as much reason to suppose this as there is to suppose TU24 is made of marshmallow.

(And as I keep pointing out, even if this electrically charged theory were correct, TU24 is absolutely miniscule in comparison with the Earth so would still have no effect whatsoever )


Originally posted by jfj123
This is just another planet x "type" thread. No real facts just supposition and pseudoscience.


Yep
I'm just bored or I wouldn't even bother.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moegli
reply to post by looofo
 


Wikipedia didn't mention if they were negatively charged or not. They must have been positive or neutral passing Earth with no reaction.



Thank you. Does anyone know if the majority of space junk is neutral charge or + or - ?

one thing that can be added, I take Pluto into Capricorn on the 25th of January very seriously.


So in terms of echos of the past, 2001-2005 paralleled 1755-1760, while 2006-2007 will parallel 1759-1762. Things are obviously in ferment, preparing for major developments when Pluto enters Capricorn, bringing forth similarities with the years from 1762-1778. Giving you a couple of brief hints about the hot zones, Saturn squares Pluto November 2009 through March 2010, and again July through October 2010. Uranus in Aries will square Pluto in Capricorn between May 2010 and August 2010, and from March 2011 through April 2017. The obvious zone of max intensity is when the Uranus square Pluto is exact; this will occur between June 2011 and October 2011, occurs exactly between May and October 2012, is again exact between April 2013 and June 2013, September 2013 through May 2014, November 2014 through April 2015, and finally December 2015 through March 2016.


Source



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by aaaauroraaaaa
 


what factual, scientific evidence do you have to support the plasma discharge idea?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by aaaauroraaaaa
 


what factual, scientific evidence do you have to support the plasma discharge idea?



Originally posted by Moegli
For those who seek knowledge in the field of Plasma Cosmology, here is a nice start:

www.plasmacosmology.net



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaauroraaaaa

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by aaaauroraaaaa
 


Does that mean that we are negatively charged and that is the reason we do not "fall from Earth"?

Or did I misunderstood what you wrote?


The latter.

I meant that if there was 0 charge, there would be no gravity.
If you have a charge, you then have gravity, and one would not "fall" from the earth.



What a load of utter bollocks.

The electrical charge has nothing to do with gravity.
Its the mass of the earth which keeps us on, the "strong" electrical force and the "week" gravitational force are two different things.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaauroraaaaa

Originally posted by jfj123

Very well said

This is just another planet x "type" thread. No real facts just supposition and pseudoscience.


what is a real fact and what is a fake fact?


A real fact is a factual statement that is verifiable through logical, scientific methods. Something that is provable.

A fake fact is when someone tries passing off an opinion as fact without any evidence to support their statement.
A good example of this is the pro-planet x'ers who claim a brown dwarf, traveling at the speed of light is going to zip by earth either in 2003, 2008 or 2012 depending on who you ask. They say it's a fact but then you ask them to show you the evidence and there is none to show you
Hopefully that example helps.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


There's no factual evidence for plasma discharge theory in this context whatsoever.

The planet's atmosphere is bombarded with meteors and smaller fragments of space "dust" every second of every day. All sorts of different variations in electostatic charges will be involved. The phenomenon of plasma discharge just doesn't exist.

And as for the highly confused ramblings a couple of pages back... electronic charge has sweet FA to do with gravity. Experiments which determine the eimpirical value of the gravitational constant have to be designed precisely to remove all possibility of electrostatic forces interfering. Gravity works for mutually electrostatically neutral bodies.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bicnarok

The electrical charge has nothing to do with gravity.
Its the mass of the earth which keeps us on, the "strong" electrical force and the "week" gravitational force are two different things.



What is interesting, is that the scientific community has no idea what gravity is, one can only model it's properties using mathematics, nothing more as of yet. Although Tesla had some pretty interesting theories. A basketball that drops to the ground drops why? it has no magnetic properties?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaauroraaaaa

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by aaaauroraaaaa
 


what factual, scientific evidence do you have to support the plasma discharge idea?



Originally posted by Moegli
For those who seek knowledge in the field of Plasma Cosmology, here is a nice start:

www.plasmacosmology.net


Maybe I should have been more clear with my question. Can you post specific scientifically verifiable evidence showing how/when/why a plasma discharge occurs from a moving/passing object to a 2nd object (ie the asteroid and the earth).
Can you please post the total expected energy transfer from the asteroid to the earth?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


No one said 2007 TU24 is definitely charged, whether it is negatively charged or not is pure speculation.

If it is indeed negatively charged, its going to have a significant reaction affecting ALL of the Earth's Electromagnetic field. Like being jolted by Static electricity.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Can you please post the total expected energy transfer from the asteroid to the earth?



Originally posted by Moegli
reply to post by Essan
 


No one said 2007 TU24 is definitely charged, whether it is negatively charged or not is pure speculation.

If it is indeed negatively charged, its going to have a significant reaction affecting ALL of the Earth's Electromagnetic field. Like being jolted by Static electricity.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I think 'plasma' is just a cool sounding name that makes people excited for no reason. That site doesn't strike me as being overtly scientific, it seems more theory based. Other objects have passed us by before, bigger and closer, what was their charge states?? I can't see how something the size of a sky scraper can affect something as big as the Earth. The ISS is bigger than a sky scraper, and it constantly circles the Earth, along with a million pieces of space junk, why isn't that all having an effect.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
aaaauroraaaaa

You probably missed my post in the middle of all the other posts.

Do you think that there was any electrical interaction between the probes sent from Earth to Mars?

I ask because if the Earth is positively charged, then the probes were positively charged. In that case, and as you said that Mars is negatively charged, shouldn't there have been a plasma discharge when the probes reached Mars?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaauroraaaaa

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by aaaauroraaaaa
 


what factual, scientific evidence do you have to support the plasma discharge idea?



Originally posted by Moegli
For those who seek knowledge in the field of Plasma Cosmology, here is a nice start:

www.plasmacosmology.net


This is a general non-mainstream site about plasma cosmology.

It doesn't even have the correct number of states of matter !!!

A cutting edge site should have those, wouldn't you think?



[edit on 20-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moegli
For those who seek knowledge in the field of Plasma Cosmology, here is a nice start:

www.plasmacosmology.net


This site is set up to further sales of the book on it. It isn't hard to see that.

Some instructive further reading about that book:

www.tim-thompson.com...
www.electric-cosmos.org...

However, none of this really has any relevance to meteors or asteroids passing near the planet. We watched an asteroid colliding with Jupiter very closely a few years back, and as I mentioned, our atmosphere is sturck by the second by space debris of various sizes (and which presumably carry various electrostatic charges). The best theories should match our obeservations - and those observations are that "capacitance electrostatic discharge" (a much more accurate phrase than the wonderfully-esoteric-sounding "plasma discharge") is not stimulated by rocks approaching other rocks.

Cheers.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by d60944]



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join